23. Can I welcome Nigel de Gruchy and Eamonn
O'Kane to our Committee. I hope there is going to be no stopwatch
on us, Nigel, because you may get five minutes less than the first
witnesses because it seems to take time to warm up. We will have
a defence ready if allegations are made. Can I welcome both of
you to our deliberations and also say I presume this may well
beI think you are retiring in two monthsMr de Gruchy,
a farewell and a hello to Eamonn who will be taking over from
you. We look forward to working with you both in different roles,
as I know you are going on to become Chairman of the TUC. Eamonn,
welcome too. Can we get started. I feel very conscious that some
people did not have a chance to ask a question of the NUT so I
am going to give them a chance to bat first with you. Can I just
open in terms of preparation and say is there a particular line
that you feel there is a deficiency in, a weakness? Can I challenge
you, in a sense, to say okay, over the first five years of this
Government that is now in power, in terms of their educational
policy, give us a couple of what you see to have been the strengths
of that policy and a couple of the weaknesses?

(Mr de Gruchy) I think the strength of
the policy was that there was a clear commitment not just to supporting
education but also to putting that in a more tangible form by
way of additional resources. But that was rather a long time in
coming, and on account of that teachers felt, I think, more demoralised.
I anticipated there would be an escalating problem of excessive
workload because when I saw New Labour when they were in opposition
and all the plans they were announcing, I did anticipate there
would be an even greater increase in workload than there had been
under the previous Conservative Government since about the mid-1980s
or, certainly, the 1988 Education Reform Act. I also noticed,
for example, how Gordon Brown, before he became Chancellor, was
encouraging the then Conservative Government to phase one of the
teachers' pay awards, which was already modest anyway. So I was
not at all surprised that things in the first year or two seemed
to get worse because the promise seemed to be better but, of course,
the delivery was simply not there. In some ways, I think, morale
worsened unfortunately, certainly in the first two or three years
of New Labour, but then to be positive and not to spend all our
time looking backwards I think the situation is now changing,
changing quite radically and changing for the better. To pick
up on one or two questions which have already been asked of the
NUT, I have said to Estelle Morris that I would be perfectly happy
to switch over, if you like, to cross the Rubicon and begin to
talk up teaching again as a valuable profession into which we
should actively encourage our youngsters to join if there would
be just one more change made, because the Government has, at long
last, recognised two issues which we have been concerned about,
frankly, for many, many years. One is excessive workload. I began
my time as General Secretary of the NASUWT some 12 years ago now
launching a campaign against excessive workload, and at long last
we now seem to be making some progress. The other measure, which
I am glad to see other people in the teaching world now agreeing
with, is pupil indiscipline, which is a very, very big problem
indeed. I am delighted (not delighted with the problem, of course)
that that is much more widely recognised than it ever has been
in the past. On those two issues of workload and indiscipline,
the Government has at long last begun to show signs that they
appreciate there are serious problems and are now beginning to
do concrete and beneficial things about them. So I welcome that.
The issue of pay, obviously, is always there. We are making some
progress. Again, to go back to some of the questions that were
asked earlier, it is simply not true to say that the teaching
profession as a whole opposed the performance pay system. Certain
unions had certain attitudes, but the NASUWTand again this
is not always appreciated as widely as it should be in the outside
worldas far back as the mid-1980s developed a policy which
actively advocated the linking of pay to appraisal, so you could
therefore channel the major part of the resources into the most
important thing, as you say yourself, Chairman, which goes on
in a school, which is the quality of the learning and teaching
in the classroom. Hitherto, too much of the promotion money was
geared to rewarding people who left the classroom and began to
take on an increasing role in management and administrationall
very important things in themselves , but nowhere near so important
as the quality of teaching and learning. The Government came out
with the Green Paper at the end of 1998 The Future of the Teaching
Profession and held out the possibility of gearing the pay
system to better rewarding the good, effective classroom teacher.
We welcomed that proposal, far from opposing it, although the
Government did itself down by insisting that one particular criterion
has to relate to pupil progress, which we thought was rather unhelpful.
But, by and large, we have made that system quite manageable and,
as you said, nearly 200,000 teachers have got through and therefore
we are making progress. The one issue where the Government really
did need to make some progress was on the question of indiscipline.
If they could come up with some better ideas and more support
for teachers and all those three problems were seen to be being
seriously tackled by the Government, I told Estelle Morris I would
be delighted to spend my last year as General Secretary of the
NASUWT actively talking up the profession and actively encouraging
youngsters to come into it.

Mr Shaw

24. It is very encouraging to hear that you
are going to talk up the profession and encourage young people
into it. Obviously, when young people watch the news and all they
observe general secretaries of the teaching trade unions doing
is complain, complain, complain, I think it is hardly likely to
send a message "This is the job for me! I am full of enthusiasm;
Mr de Gruchy is complaining but I am willing to take on the challenge
and go into the classroom." I think it does put young people
off. You also mentioned crossing the Rubicon and working with
Government. Can you tell us, what is your relationship like now
with the Secretary of State? Can you pick up the `phone and say
"Estelle, we have got a problem here"? Does she pick
up the `phone and say "Nigel, how are we going to sort this
out?" I do not want you to divulge confidential conversationswell
you can do if you wantbut do you have that?
(Mr de Gruchy) I am not going to disclose a confidential
relationship with the Secretary of State.

25. A confidential conversation.
(Mr de Gruchy) It does not happen very often, although
to be fair I have to admit that the first Secretary of State who
`phoned me up to suggest we have a talk and discuss things before
press statements were made was actually Gillian Shephard. From
that moment on, I think, things have got better between us, but
there is plenty of room for improvement and plenty of room for
improved dialogue between government and, perhaps, all trade unions
not just in education but across the whole economy. I think that
is beginning to take place now. Again, not to look back over times
past and water under the bridge and all that, the very meaningful
consultation we had in recent weeks over the drafting of the remit
letter for the review body to consider a supplementary report
on workload was very, very helpful indeed and has changed the
atmosphere almost overnight, because we had a positive input into
that letter. At the moment we are having meetings with the TUC
unions, we are having meetings with the head teacher organisations,
we hope to have meetings with the employers and meetings with
government officials. We are going to do our bestand it
is a tall orderto try to produce united evidence to the
review body on the question of workload. I think the step forward
which has opened up this possibilityand it is only a remote
possibility at this stage, but nevertheless we are going to trywas
the consultation that took place by Estelle Morris over the drafting
of the letter. If more of that could happen then that can only
be to the benefit of everyone: the children, the unions, the teachers
and the parents.

Chairman: I am facing industrial action on my
Committee if I do not call Meg Munn immediately.

Ms Munn

26. Thank you. I hate to give the impression
I have not got anything to say. I would like to explore a bit
more this issue about indiscipline that you raised, which is something
that you say your union, in particular, has been concerned about
for a number of years. My experience, as a governor in different
schools, is that so much about pupil behaviour and management
of behaviour which is clearly crucial to how children perform
is around the school itself; the leadership within the school
and how that is managed. What is it that you think the Government
should be doing about this?
(Mr de Gruchy) I agree with your analysis, and there
is no doubt about it that teachersalthough they do have
to spend a lot more time there and that should not be forgottendevelop
sometimes quite complicated behaviour management policies in order
to cope with what is, obviously, an escalating problem in society.
One should not forget, therefore, that teachers have to make additional
efforts to cope with these problems. I agree thoroughly: you do
need to have a good, strong head teacher and good, strong teachers
as well. If they do the right things and, above all, if they have
a meaningful curriculum to develop (and there are huge problems
there, particularly in the latter stages of secondary education,
and I understand the Government is going to look at that) then
I think you have a very big chance of succeeding. Even in those
situations, you will always, unfortunately, find one or two individual
youngsters, most of whom have pretty appalling, sad and dreadful
home backgrounds, who present problems with which any normal human
being or professional simply cannot cope, and, in particular,
at the same time, cope with such serious social problems and do
all the thousand and one other things that are increasingly expected
of teachers. In that situation you must be able permanently to
exclude. We do not say "throw them out on to the streets",
we must have alternative provision to which those youngsters could
be properly referred and people could then begin to address their
particular needs. In the first part of the Government's term of
office, particularly the first four years, from 1997 to 2001,
I think they had an unrealistic attitude to inclusivity; there
were head teachers, there were LEAs ther were various peopleEAZswho
took it as a matter of dogma, a matter of principle, that under
no circumstances are we going to exclude any youngster. If you
combine that with other aspects of policies which have been developed
by governments over the years, particularly GM and things like
that, which resulted in some schools having to fight very, very
hard to get their fair share of youngsters, youngsters who were
rightly excluded from school found themselves increasingly concentrated
in a number of schools which may, in turn, have had their own
weaknesses, and when you get a situation where, perhaps, half-a-dozen
or so youngsters who are seriously disturbed and not properly
dealt with, are allowed to remain in mainstream schools, inevitably
they attract two or three youngsters each and you can quickly
get into a situationand I am not just talking about The
Ridings, there have been several other schools that have got themselves
pretty close to this situationwhere it is very easy for
that half-a-dozen or so impossible youngsters to escalate into
20, 30, 40 or even 50, and then you do have chaotic, failing schools.
The problem has been developing for many, many years, and I think
the government in its first term added to that problem, but I
am delighted to say that the Government is taking a more realistic
attitude. Again, I would like to think it was partly as a result
of the pressure we applied, and I am pleased to see other organisations
and other people applying the same pressure as well. I think there
is a much more sensible focus upon those youngsters now, and I
think there is a readiness to recognise that they have to be referred
elsewhere. This is not an easy answer to give because there are
some youngsters, frankly, for whom I have no idea (and I am pretty
certain my colleagues recently in the classroom may share this
view) how you tackle the problem. I do not think anyone knows,
so difficult are some of the social problems that they bring.
However, what I am absolutely convinced about is that we have
to remove them from mainstream schools to stop them wrecking the
education of others and making life impossible for otherwise good
quality teachers, and then begin to try and do something for these
most unfortunate young people.

27. I am quite concerned, again, perhaps, about
saying "We must be allowed to permanently exclude some children";
not the concept that there are some children who are very difficult
to manage in school, precisely for the reasons you have explained,
but given that most of the children who get to that situation
are known about as having problems, surely the emphasis needs
to be on earlier intervention and other more innovative ways of
looking at allowing those children to learn. To be permanently
excluded is so devastating and very difficult for that child who
has already got problems.
(Mr de Gruchy) I could not agree with you more. In
most cases you can see the problems not just in the primary school,
you can see them before they get anywhere near a school. You get
problems now with youngsters arriving in nursery education who
are completely out of control on day one; you cannot blame that
upon incompetent teachers or poor management; that is obviously
home backgroundor lack of home background, perhapsand
the earlier we can identify those problems, get hold of those
youngsters and try and do something for them, obviously that is
for the better. What I think is exacerbating the situation is
when schools, under pressure from certain people, come under pressure
to retain those youngsters, when it is totally unrealistic to
expect normal human beings to be able to cope with those problems
and, at the same time, all the other things.
(Mr O'Kane) Just to follow up the question you asked
about what could Government do, one of the things the Government
has recently recognised in the White Paper, which I think is very
welcome, are the proposed changes to the Independent Appeals Panels
which consider appeals against permanent exclusion by schools.
What the Government has suggested there is minor, in one way but,
I think, will have significance, which is that the appeals panels
should not allow minor irregularities of procedure (and I do mean
minor irregularities of procedure) to nullify the original decision
of the school. That is sensible, as we have had examples where,
quite frankly, ludicrous decisions have been taken by Independent
Appeals Panels sending pupils back into schools with a consequent
effect on the moral of the school. The second thing they suggest
is that the appeals panels also have in their membership people
with recent classroom experience. I think that is equally important,
because frankly sometimes these appeals panels are staffed by
people whose experience of school today is non-existent or is
based on some sort of nostalgic view of what schools wereor,
indeed, if I may say so, some sort of ideological view of what
schools ought to be. I do not think that relates to the reality.
The third factor that the Government suggested, which, again,
is very welcome, is that the appeals panels should take into account
the wider interests of the school and balance that against the
individual interests of the child. That is a difficult balance,
but as colleagues will know we have been faced with difficult
court cases in which the decisions of Independent Appeals Panels
have been resisted. Schools have recognised that they are unworkable
and, obviously, othersparents, grandparents, representatives
of pupilshave taken legal action in order, as they see
it, to protect their interests. As judges keep pointing out, these
are entirely inappropriate things to be brought out in a court;
these are issues for the internal operation of the school. In
answer to your question, that is something the Government has
done and which we certainly welcome.

Paul Holmes

28. Looking at one particular aspect of behaviour,
one MP in the last few days suggested that the educational under-achievement
of Afro-Caribbean males was down to failures of predominantly
white, female teachers who could not handle their particular problem.
An Afro-Caribbean academic countered by saying that from his research
he thought it was down to the anti-school street culture of that
particular group of people. What would you say to that and, more
importantly, what we are going to do about it?
(Mr de Gruchy) I think it is dangerous and wrong to
view these things in terms of race, because it is more a question
of home and social background and, perhaps, economic circumstances.
I know this is a problem, but if you look at all the groups who
are excluded or over-excluded, as the case may be, it is not just
a question of one particular minority being over-excluded, it
varies quite considerably. Youngsters, for example, who are taken
into care, youngsters of travellers and people like that are over-excluded
as well. Some ethnic minorities are less excluded than white people,
and I think the common thread running through all that is more
a question of economic circumstance, because youngsters coming
from poor backgrounds tend to behave in certain ways and economic
deprivation is not limited to one particular racial group. So
I do not think it is at all helpful to look at it in terms of
race.

Mr Shaw

29. If we have a case where a particular group
is under-performing and there is concern that Afro-Caribbean boys
are under-performing and concerns that there are higher proportions
of ethnic groups in prison, surely we should recognise that there
are particular aspects relating to that group , and in this instance
it is a racial group, and try to understand what are the complexities
that, perhaps, the profession have not got to grips with. We need
to understand more. Perhaps there needs to be better relationships
between home and the school to understand the complexities. Surely
race, in this instance, is relevant.
(Mr de Gruchy) Not necessarily. I would still say
(and I am not an expert in this area at all), just from a common-sense
point of view and a limited amount of knowledge, that economic
circumstances are more important and it so happens that certain
ethnic minorities are more economically disadvantaged then white
people generally. Therefore they tend to be the ones who might
be misbehaving or under-performing.

Ms Munn

30. It does not happen with black girls, it
happens with black boys.
(Mr de Gruchy) There again, I think that is a common
problem across boys and girls of all races and all economic groupings.
(Mr O'Kane) There was an interesting conclusion, Chairman,
in a recent study which I think has not been given nearly enough
publicity, and that was the PISA study (the Programme of International
Student Achievement) that was carried out by the OECD countries
into the achievement levels of 15-year olds in literacy, mathematical
literacy and scientific knowledge. Britain came seventh, in maths
came eighth and in science came third out of 31 countries. I wish
this was made more public. This does reflect extremely well on
our education system and as an antidote, I think, to much of the
pessimism that prevails commentary about educational work. The
point that they made very, very forcefully was that better outcomes
in terms of educational achievement is linked very closely to
reduction of inequality of opportunities. In other words, the
more opportunities you produce for children to progress and the
more you bring together the social differentiations in society,
the better chance you have of achieving a higher average outcome
of educational achievement. That may seem to many of us a fairly
banal observation, but frankly that runs counter to much of the
argument that you find associated with streaming and differentiation
in schools. The OECD report really does bear close scrutiny because
it relates, in a general sense, to the pointwhether it
is race or whether it is classinequality of opportunity
does hold back the whole development and improvement of educational
outcomes in general. That is clear from the OECD report. It seems
to me to be an absolutely powerful driver of education policy
in this country, and I hope and think the Government are intending
to make a lot more of this. The press do not exactly trumpet it
forth because it is good news and that never plays well, but it
is a very powerful message for teachers. It is a fascinating report,
actually. It concludes, for example, that one of the Government's,
perhaps, favoured nostrums is not quite as effective as they might
imagine; ie, they conclude there is no link between ICT and education
outcome, which comforts many of us, I think, with a slightly more
cynical view of the impact of ICT on learning.

Mr Shaw

31. Surely that is because we have not developed
the full potential of ICT. The Government is talking about seeing
broadband expanded so that schools can use it, so that there are
real benefits from ICT rather than some of the inadequate forms
of ICT in schools at the moment.
(Mr O'Kane) That is a fair point.

Chairman

32. If we are going to talk about ICT, I think
it would be fair to give Nigel de Gruchy a chance to
(Mr de Gruchy) On ICT?

33. It is something that goes with it in terms
of the Government's approach to these things, taking the stress
out of teachers' lives and giving them a chance to teach, rather
than be distracted by other duties, and that is classroom assistants.
There has been a lot of controversy about whether you did or not
discourage classroom assistants. What is the union's view about
using classroom assistants to take pressure off teachers so that
they can teach? Did you say what was reported?
(Mr de Gruchy) The answer to that is no. Can I refer
you to the public statements I have made, because one of the greatest
ironies is that it was an off-the-cuff comment anyway responding
to Estelle Morris in a seminar. I prefaced my remarks by saying
that I welcomed the better use that was increasingly being made
of classroom assistants, but I was making the point which I think
has also been echoed by one of our NUT colleagues earlier that
originally these assistants were brought in and were helping to
ease the workload, but as they took on an increasingly professional
role so their work was expanding and, in some instances, I had
anecdotal reports that teachers are going back to the more mundane
tasks of clearing up afterwards and putting up the displays for
which the classroom assistants were originally engaged. I welcomed
their increasingly professional role in schools but I was simply
warning the government that it was not going to be a cheap option,
and we are seeing signs of that, and then I used that rather unfortunate
phrase. It was not meant to relate to anyone at all actually.
That is why no one responded at the time. Presumably, had I said
what I was reported to have said, Estelle Morris would have jumped
right down my throat, and she did not and nor did the other journalists,
actually.

34. Would you agree with Doug McAvoy that you
see classroom assistants as having a career progression into the
teaching profession?
(Mr de Gruchy) Quite possibly so, and that is what
we welcome. I said to Estelle Morris, because of the SMF speech
and the pamphlet she produced, that the NASUWT had a completely
open mind and we were very willing to sit down with Government
and examine the roles of teachers and the roles of all sorts of
classroom and other assistants in schools to take the situation
forward. We are delighted that the working party on remodelling
(as it has been called) has been set up as a result of various
things, including the Pricewaterhousecoopers report. In fact,
only yesterday afternoon that particular group had its first meeting.
Eamonn is obviously representing the Association on that working
group and we are delighted with the establishment of that group
and we want to work positively with everyone better to define
teachers' roles so that we can concentrate on the most important
task of teaching in the classroom and get the appropriate support.
At the moment, as the Pricewaterhousecoopers report has shown,
teachers do spend far too much of their time on purely admin,
clerical jobsthe proverbial photocopier. Teachers spend
so many hours trying to make those things work and doing all sorts
of other things, and it is high time that was stopped to allow
teachers to concentrate on their proper professional role. So
we are more than happy to play our full part.

Valerie Davey

35. I would like to follow this up. We have
heard from the NUT earlier and you have endorsed their welcome,
but who is analysing all this research into the value of the added
adult in the classroom on the learning process? When the previous
group went to Switzerland, the bonding of one teacher with a small
group of children was seen to them as of supreme value, and the
intrusion of other adults was not welcome. We are saying these
other adults can come in. What evidence have we gotwho
is analysing all this research?
(Mr de Gruchy) It is a good question, actually, and
at the moment no one. I think there has been one piece of research
which makes that very point, that there is no demonstrable link
between the employment of classroom assistants and improved standards.
On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that they can reduce
workload, particularly if they are employed for admin and clerical
duties. You are right to point out that at this stage we are uncertain
as to whether the role of classroom assistants in a more professional
role actually leads to an improvement in educational outcomes.
That needs to be further examined, and we are obviously prepared
to do so.
(Mr O'Kane) There has been some research, I think,
by the Open University that looked at the impact of classroom
assistants and came to these rather surprising conclusions that
while it may have helped to alleviate pressures on teachers the
jury was out as to whether or not it actually improved standards.
On the other hand, as our colleagues from the NUT pointed out,
in the numeracy and literacy strategy there may well be evidence
that they have been helpful there. I think it is a fair conclusion
to say that that has not yet been proven, but I do believe that
the whole role of teaching assistants is a crucial one and, in
fact, it is not, in that sense, new. There was a document produced
by the DfEE, as it then was, in late 1998 when Estelle Morris
was a Minister, which looked at the role of teaching assistants
then and, in fact, coined the phrase "teaching assistants".
It pointed out that their roles were increasing and they were
being more closely involved in the pedagogic function. This is
particularly true in special schools and the linkage with early
years education; there is a close linkage there. It comes back
to the point that the Chairman made earlier on, that this area
becomes grey. That is perfectly true. It will be necessary to
clearly think about what functions, what duties and what responsibilities
do fall specifically on teachers and on teachers alone, and what
they manage in terms of the work of other people. I do not have
any illusions that this discussion will be quite a difficult one;
I think it is a necessary one and I think teachers will recognise
it is a necessary one. The other jobs that people describe going
on are fairly easy to distinguish, and I do not mean that in a
dismissive way at all, but they can I think be easily analysed.
It is this grey area where I think we will see intense, difficult,
but, nonetheless, constructive, discussions in this very working
party that Nigel referred to.

Jeff Ennis

36. There is an Education Bill wending its way
through the House at the present time. What do you perceive to
be the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill, and are there any
major omissions from the Bill that you would have liked to have
seen included?
(Mr de Gruchy) I think we have circulated some of
you with our views overall about the Bill. Frankly, we do not
see a great need for it. The Secretary of State says the driving
principle is the need to have power to innovate. There has been
so much innovation in the last 20 years we have innovation fatigue.
We certainly do not see that as a top priority. The top priority
is the sort of thing we have been talking about this morning:
the need to recruit and retain teachers, the need to release them
to get on with the job of teaching and to raise standards. There
are some good aspects of the Bill (although we have yet to see
some of the details) because in some areas having increased flexibility
is long overdue and the promise of increased flexibility over
the National Curriculumparticularly in the 14-19 range,
which has been the subject of some debate for the Governmentis
a very, very important area, although it does not feature very
significantly in the Bill. Again, we see some common sense in
freeing up some aspects of pay and conditions. They are far too
detailed at the moment, for all sorts of interesting reasons,
and there is, perhaps, a need to have a flexible approach. The
review body has had to deal with too much detail. We need a parallel
committee to deal with details of things like appraisals and threshold
standards rather than putting them through statutory documents.
We do not see any need for schools to be allowed to opt out of
the national pay and conditions of service; we think that raises
all sorts of problems. By and large, we think it is an unnecessary
Bill. I think it reflects the preoccupations of individuals who
become specialist advisers here there and everywhere, and their
preoccupations seem to find their way into revisions of legislation
which we think are not particularly helpful. We do wish the Government
would listen to a broader audience about what are the chief concerns.

37. What about the faith schools issue?
(Mr de Gruchy) Again, we have made our views very
clear about that. I think it was a mistake for the Government,
or perhaps for the Prime Minister, to give a sudden emphasis to
these faith schools at this particular moment in time. You cannot
have some religions being allowed to have their schools while
others are not. Therefore, if good cases are made out by particular
groups then I think that is irresistible. On the other hand, I
do not think it is wise to actively encourage them, given all
the other difficulties that can accompany faith schools. We say
to Government "Proceed with great caution", and I do
think there has been a change in the Government's attitude. It
is quite subtle, but I was relieved to hear the Secretary of State
saying that they are only going to accede to new faith schools
after they have consulted the whole community.

Chairman

38. The Minister of State went out of his way
to re-emphasise faith schools only this week on the Today
programme. As we have got Eamonn here, and he has special knowledge,
can we hear his view on faith schools?
(Mr O'Kane) Here I was treading very carefully! The
view we take, as Nigel says, is quite a straightforward one. The
fact is that we have in this country, for good or for ill, the
existence of denominational schools (which I think is probably
a better description of them). They exist for historic reasons.
The big decision was made in 1944 to finance them from the state,
and that was done. The previous Conservative administration, I
think, in a little-noticed move at the time, when it introduced
GM schools, changed the basis on which these schools could then
be financed, with 100 per cent financing if they chose to become
grant maintained, and that broke the dam. It disrupted the 1944
agreement, which I think has consequences even now. As Nigel said,
in the situation we now have, particularly in some of our cities
where faith schools can be identified with specific communities
and where that can lead to tension, to encourage their further
proliferation is a step fraught with danger. Therefore, while
no one can, I think, seriously argue for the abolition of denominational
schools, nevertheless their continued expansion is something that
has to be thought through extremely carefully. In particular,
I thought the Church of England Dearing Report, which argued for
a rapid expansion of Church of England schools, was ill-thought
out and should not be implemented. In fact, when the Church of
England then argued that such schools would be open to all faiths,
I then ask the question "In which case, why do they exist?",
because if they are open to all faiths that is exactly what a
community school is and should be. For the Church of England then
to assert "We can open to all faiths but we still have a
Church of England ethos" I think it is reasonable enough
to ask the question "Why then should the state subsidise
the propagation of a particular ethos as opposed to another ethos?"
I think this does raise a question which I hope will be seriously
addressed, and I hope the Church of England will think again about
this proposal.

Mr Chaytor

39. The former Chief Inspector of Schools, of
whom you were very critical, stated that there were 15,000 incompetent
teachers. How many do you think there are?
(Mr de Gruchy) I am surprised to be asked that question,
because it was a silly statement at the time. It was not based
on any scientific evidence whatsoever. Even if it were true, I
think the figure now is so negligible because, frankly, it is
impossible for anyone to survive unless you are pretty competent
in schools these days. There are so many levels of accountability,
you are going to be sussed out pretty quickly. I do not think
it is a significant problem these days.